Jharkhand High Court
Nasruddin Ansari vs The State Of Jharkhand on 11 September, 2024
Author: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
Bench: Anubha Rawat Choudhary
6IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Rev. No. 1589 of 2019
Nasruddin Ansari, aged 42 years, son of Rasool Mian @ Rasul Mian,
resident of Village: Baiohari P.O. & P.S. Muffasil, District Haaribagh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. Nezam Ansari s/o Late Usman Ansari, r/o Village: Habibnagar,
Khirgaon P.O. and P.S. Sadar, District Hazaribagh
... ... Opposite Parties
---
CORAM :HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Md. Sajid Yunus, Advocate
For the Opp. Party No.2 : Mr. Awnish Shankar, Advocate
---
07/11.09.2024
1. This revision petition has been filed for the following reliefs:-
"For setting aside the order dated 26.08.2019 passed by
Sri Yogesh Kumar, the learned Additional Sessions Judge
VII, Hazaribagh in Cr. Appeal No. 95/2017 by which the
learned Additional Sessions Judge VII, Hazaribagh has
affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by Shri Pradeep Kumar, the Learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class at Hazaribagh in Complaint case No.
1372/2011, T.R. No. 3756/2017 passed on 12/7/17 under
section 138 of N.I. Act by which the Learned Judicial
Magistrate 1st Class has held that the complainant has been
able to prove the guilty of the accused beyond reasonable
doubts and accordingly, the accused Nasruddin Ansari is
found and held guilty for the offence under section 138 of
Negotiate Instruments Act and sentence him to undergo RI
for 6 months for committing the offence punishable u/s 138
of the N.I. Act and has also directed to pay Rs. 2,80,000/-
as compensation to u/s 357(3) of the Cr.P.C. to the
complainant. But the Learned Appellate Court without
applying judicial mind, without considering the evidences
has affirmed the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence and rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner. The
order is cryptic, without assigning any reason, as well as
did not consider that he is dealing with the appeal and the
mandatory provision of law which is mentioned under
section 138 of the N.I. Act has not been followed. So the
same is fit to be set aside by this Hon'ble Court."
2. The learned counsel for the parties are present. They submit
that three interlocutory applications have been filed, which are
pending before this Court.
3. I.A No. 1972 of 2020 has been filed seeking condonation of
delay of 11 days in filing the present criminal revision, I.A No. 3330
of 2024 has been filed seeking exemption from surrender and I.A No.
3363 of 2024 is a joint compromise petition filed by the petitioner and
opposite party No. 2.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted the
interlocutory application being I.A. No. 1972 of 2020 has been filed
seeking condonation of delay of 11 days in filing the present revision
petition.
5. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has no serious
objection to the prayer made in the interlocutory application being I.A.
No. 1972 of 2020.
6. Accordingly, I.A. No. 1972 of 2020 is hereby allowed. The
prayer of the petitioner to condone the delay of 11 days in filing of
this revision petition is hereby condoned.
I.A No. 3330 of 2024 & I.A. No. 3363 of 2024
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that I.A. No.
3330 of 2024 has been filed on 03.04.2024 seeking exemption from
surrender. Subsequently, on 04.04.2024 another interlocutory
application being I.A. No. 3363 of 2024 has been jointly filed by the
parties mentioning that the matter has been settled out of Court.
8. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 has submitted
that he has received compensation amount awarded by the learned
court by way of cash.
9. The learned counsel for the opposite party No. 2 further submits
that he does not want to pursue the case against the petitioner anymore
and he has no objection if the conviction of the petitioner is set aside
and this revision petition is disposed of in terms of joint compromise.
10. The learned counsel for the State has submitted that the matter
arises out of conviction under section 138 of Negotiable Instrument
Act, 1881 which is compoundable in nature and he has nothing to say
in the matter if the parties have settled the case outside the Court.
11. Considering the aforesaid submission, this revision petition is
disposed of in terms of compromise entered into between the parties.
The interlocutory application being I.A. No. 3363 of 2024 is hereby
allowed. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel for
the parties, the conviction of the petitioner for offence under section
138 of the Negotiable Instrument Act is set aside.
12. Since the conviction has been set aside and the matter has been
disposed of in terms of compromise, there is no need for the petitioner
to surrender. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 3330 of 2024 seeking
exemption from surrender is also disposed of.
13. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the court
concerned through 'FAX/E-mail'.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Rakesh/-
